Rather beastly constitution question?

Question

Explain one contemporary example (from the first ten amendments) that illusatrates how individual rights may conflict with or support the common good.


(any suggestions help i just need like the name of an example to get me started, I'll fill in the rest myself)

Answer 1

Fifth Amendment.

Life liberty and property cannot be seized without due process of law. You have a right to property, but it can also be seized by the government (Eminent Domain). This is a clear conflict area between individual rights and the common good. Check out the case of

Kelo v New London (2005). Tons of information. Hot topic.

Hope this helps

Answer 2

That one's easy, and I may be about to ignite a flame war on this one: the right to bear arms. All it says in the Second Amerndment is that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " It was written under the assumption by the founding fathers that the military was always going to be formed by volunteers/conscripts from the general population, who would bring their own weapons to the fight. Weapons would be provided for those whose own personal weapons were damaged or lost, or for those who could not afford to bring their own.

In modern times, of course, the military is it's own separate part of the federal government, provisioned with what it needs out of its own budget, so the right to bear arms in one's home has become more of an issue of personal security rather than preparedness for military duty. Lobbyist groups such as the National Rifle Association campaign tirelessly to lift or limit state and federal restrictions on the kinds of weapons a private citizen may legally own, ostensibly under the assumption that the second amendment should be taken literally at face value, no interpretation necessary (of course, the other side of it is that their members just like blowing stuff up with really big guns) So, it's the constitutional right for a private citizen to own a gun or twelve, but it's in the best interest of society and anybody downrange if somebody limits the firepower any one person can have on him at any one time (if private citizens are better armed than the police force, it's bad, but it's equally bad if it just means that every offier walking a beat carries a grenade launcher on his shoulder, for use during domestic disputes.)

Answer 3

Here's a very contemporary example: The New York times recently published an article exposing a secret government program that monitors financial transactions in an effort to fight international terror. According to government officials quoted by the Times,"[T}he program has . . . helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia."

The First Amendment generally prohibits prior restraints on speech, so the government really couldn't do much to stop the Times from exposing this program. The government asked the Times not to expose this program, but they did anyway. So thanks to the Times, terrorist organizations are on notice their international financial transactions may be monitored so it will be harder, if not impossible, to track the flow of money that finances terror. We, their targets, are less safe.

This illustrates how the Times' individual First Amendment rights conflicts with the common good.

See the original NY Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ex=1308715200&en=168d69d26685c26c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

An essay criticizing the NY Times' decisiion:

http://www.slate.com/id/2145619/

Answer 4

You really should read up on some current events. There are plenty of conflicts. let's take two examples.

4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Recent examples of potential conflicts
- Wire taping w/out warrants
- Elements of the patriot act where searches can be performed w/out warrant or even notification.

These conflicts are in the name of national security but in theory they violate the constitution. Of course the language "reasonable" is subject to interpretation as are many areas of the constitution.

Answer 5

How about the right to not incriminate oneself? I mean, if you don't have to say that you've done something (such as murder) and there is very little evidence to suggest that you did, it definitely conflicts with the common good of getting your killing butt off the street.

What about the right to bear arms? This allows guns on the streets which isn't necessarily in the "common good" since criminals use guns for crime. Of course, it is for the common good since it keeps the government in line...

Or cruel & unusual punishment? We just stopped a couple of death sentences from being carried out becuase they are claiming that lethal injection is "cruel & unusual". This conflicts with the common good by allowing convicted criminals to live and continue to clog up our justice system.

Not sure if any of this helps or makes sense but its what I came up with!

Answer 6

Amendment II - Right to bear arms
40% (check that statistic, that number was from 1994) of all firearm accidents occured because the gun was not properly stored

Amendment IV - unlawful search and seizure
The patriot act and the government phone tapping thing. (actually watch Michael Moore's movie)

Amendment VI - Speedy trial
Look at those guys in Guantanamo

Answer 7

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Some religions practice polygamy and human sacrifice. That wouldn't fly in the US because they infringe on the rights of others.

Answer 8

Yes, well the 2nd amendment! It's giving individuals right to arm themselves and thus guaranteeing a free society (yay, or not.)

Answer 9

One could argue that the right to bear arms is good for the individual, but bad for society in general, for obvious reasons.

Answer 10

Freedom of speech.

People are allowed to express opinions, even if they are unpopular in the community. So, let's say a community opposes racism and doesn't want its children exposed to racist bigotry and hate-mongering.

A racist group wants to hold a rally in the town square, and spout its racial hate-mongering messages. Under free speech rights, they must be allowed to do so, even though 99% of the community doesn't want them to.